Comments

Well of all the politicians of the recent era, “Honourable”, still applies to PJK.
How about the rest of the trash in parliament???
To describe them accurately you would almost certainly get done for slander/libel.

That’s an unfair assessment of his argument. It had nothing to do with religion. I am pro assisted dying but his argument was the most cogent counter argument I have heard and logic based. You should read it again. It at least highlights the need to be very careful in drafting appropriate legislative safeguards.

Keating’s argument was little more than a conflation of euthanasia with the parlous state of palliative care (and care in general for the “inconvenient” in our society, from the elderly to the mentally ill), trying to push the reasoning that fixing the latter makes the former unnecessary.

The idea that there’s some unanswered questions around the ethics of facilitating suicide that needs further debate is twaddle. Doctors already do it (illegally). We already have Do Not Resuscitate orders. People already have quite frank conversations with each other along the lines of “I never want to live like that”, “please let me die if that happens to me”, etc, etc. People already off themselves in a variety of ways. Society is *quite clearly* broadly OK with the idea of individuals being able to die at a time and place of their choosing. What actually matters are the semantics around this to protect everyone involved. Keating is trying to pretend the former question is still hanging in the air and talk of the latter is an attempt to distract from that.

Keating is a strong opponent of capital punishment. But apparently while he thinks it’s wrong for the state to force someone to die, it’s OK for the state to force someone to live. This is inconsistent (at best).

No Dr Smithy it is entirely consistent. In both cases you are providing a circumstance under which the state is legally authorised to end a life. Keating argues this completely overturns the previous role of role the state to protect the life of citizens at all costs. And that once this bridge is crossed we will be relying on legislation to protect the weak and vulnerable. He does not believe that legislation can be sufficiently tailored to guarantee such protection in all circumstances. That ‘Doctors already do it (illegally)’ rather illustrates his point. I don’t agree with this position but it does explain why any legislation in this area needs to be very very carefully crafted.

In both cases you are providing a circumstance under which the state is legally authorised to end a life.

The State is NOT ending a life. The State is saying it will not prosecute people who choose to end their own lives and those who help them do so. The ending of the life is done by the person or, where they are incapable, someone they have given permission to aid them.

Keating argues this completely overturns the previous role of role the state to protect the life of citizens at all costs.

The AFP dobbing in drug smugglers knowing they would be executed would suggest that, perhaps, this is not actually the State’s role in any moral, ethical, or legal sense. And that’s before even going into sending soldiers off to die in other peoples’ wars.

And that once this bridge is crossed we will be relying on legislation to protect the weak and vulnerable.

We already rely on legislation to protect the weak and vulnerable (and it is flawed – eg: Queensland still had “gay panic” laws on the books until this year). So, no change there.

Stephen, please. The legislation is open only to patients of sound mind who are suffering an ­incurable terminal disease likely to kill them within a year. That’s incredibly restrictive. Patients with dementia cannot access the program, and patients with mental illness or a disability cannot apply for access based on those conditions alone. The strict entry requirements meant the vast bulk of Australians requesting the right to die won’t be able to access it.

“This idea of having to wait to be sick enough to comply with the requirements and then having to ask for permission doesn’t fit with the growing sentiment of most elderly Australians. There’s going to be so many people who simply won’t be able to comply with these rigorous prerequisites.” (Nitschke)

Semantics. This is major change for the state (ludicrous comparisons to war and Federal Police notwithstanding).
The argument is for very very carefully crafted legislation with appropriate oversight.
Keating has been inside the machine and doesn’t feel it can be done.
I don’t agree with him on this and believe the need for change is there. But it needs very careful consideration and oversight.
A disaster if we have elderly frail and weak ending their own lives simply because they ‘don’t want to be a burden.’ This holds true no matter how long they have left and is a very real possibility in any assisted dying regime. We should proceed very very cautiously.

Not bad but no mention of real issues. Bank created fiat money and the coming homelessness crisis, or the need for a Basic Income as soon I estimate half of Australia’s working age population will have no economic value.

Its hard to admit but I seriously believe large sections of Australia will look like Detriot, Ohio, Alabama, Kentucky while a small rump of urban elites shut themselves away in the leafy suburbs.

Yes that is all likely. But the Aussie population will first be utterly degraded and humiliated. The USA is the model their Opiod Crisis is largely publicly funded making the Sackler family unbelievably more wealthy and with the added benefit of destroying the minds and families of the growing peasant classes.
Its hard to stage a uprising if your out of your mind on smack/Oxycontin.
They will invent a similar thing here to distract the masses.

I don’t blame Keating and his decisions for where we are now. It is often the case that today’s problems are yesterday’s solutions. Back when he was in politics he saw a number of problems and he found reasonably good solutions. And as happens over time those solutions began to morph into being problematic. But unlike Keating and Walsh and co, when the pollies of the later time were faced with problems they did not find solutions. Blame lies more in the pollies that came after Keating. (a lot of what Keating says now is more about trying to protect his legacy than actually looking for solutions for today’s problems).

Somewhat unfair. I doubt anyone is able to predict how far their reforms will go and their full effect. Whatever failure his and Hawke’s reforms resulted in, they don’t lie with them, but with those who followed and did nothing to adjust as required. I doubt Keating would have stood by while it unfolded as it has over 30 YEARS after he left office.